Ooh ooh ooh aahGotta make a changeFor once in my lifeIt's gonna feel real goodGonna make a differenceGonna make it right

As I turned up the collar onA favorite winter coatThis wind is blowin' my mindI see the kids in the streetWith not enough to eatWho am I to be blindPretending not to see their needs

A summer's disregardA broken bottle topAnd a one man's soulThey follow each otherOn the wind ya' know'Cause they got nowhere to goThat's why I want you to know

I'm starting with the man in the mirrorI'm asking him to change his waysAnd no message could have been any clearerIf you wanna make the world a better placeTake a look at yourself and then make a change, yeyNa na na, na na na, na na na na oh ho

I've been a victim ofA selfish kinda loveIt's time that I realizeThere are some with no homeNot a nickel to loanCould it be really pretending that they're not alone

A willow deeply scarredSomebody's broken heartAnd a washed out dream(Washed out dream)They follow the pattern of the wind ya' see'Cause they got no place to beThat's why I'm starting with me

I'm starting with the man in the mirrorI'm asking him to change his waysAnd no message could have been any clearerIf you wanna make the world a better placeTake a look at yourself and then make a change

Last edited by christopher::: on Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

Journey wrote:Those that jump on this opportunity to follow the urge to find fault and spread dislike, seem (to me) to be as smitten with MJ as are his fans. MJ was impermanent, his bad behavior - impermanent. He may not have been perfect, but dukkha arises from our own negative reactions, not from MJ. If you read the news that MJ is dead and the reaction is the urge to spread dislike about the things he did that you do not approve of, it means negativity is still deeply rooted. Thank MJ for bringing this to light because as the Dhammapada teaches:

Easily seen are the faults of others,Hard indeed to see are one's own—Dhammapada 252-3

Christopher::: wrote:Michael Jackson is gone. I hope folks will focus more on the positive work he left behind then the negative. He didn't start any wars or cut down rainforests. At times he seemed confused of his identity, seemed to be wrestling with his desires, which may have seemed like inner demons.

He reached so many more people and appealed to the highest in them than any of those who feel so high above him, yet having unprocessed stuff themselves, like aversion, bias and lack of understanding and affection.

How may of us haven't walked that road at some times?

Everybody does.

Read this:

From a mental health colleague:

"Michael Jackson was a highly sensitive kid and adult, chronically abused as a child and his whole life was about having his boundaries chronically violated in one sense or another.

Then as a major celebrity, virtual nonexistence of privacy and defense from the boundary challenges, hence the myriad forms of "masking"" and escape, and transformation urges.

Possibilities for intimacy with any adult: zero. Consequent loneliness: massive.

Since intimacy was not possible, probably sex wasn't of much interest, except as convenient source of procreation. The only people in his perception to not violate him: children. For him, everyone else was a predator.

Emotional escape: the simple world view of a child, and his own artistic creativity, behaving like a child, and drugs.

Little opportunity for keeping within some form of normal lines from receiving environmental feedback, so his own internal reality was its own test, going wherever it went.

Sad guy. Incredible music and dancing, I loved his stuff. Correction: do love his stuff."

May he have come back soon and have an auspicious rebirth. He was a truly remarkable human being.

Metta,

Nurseholistic

Last edited by Annapurna on Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ooh ooh ooh aahGotta make a changeFor once in my lifeIt's gonna feel real goodGonna make a differenceGonna make it right

As I turned up the collar onA favorite winter coatThis wind is blowin' my mindI see the kids in the streetWith not enough to eatWho am I to be blindPretending not to see their needs

A summer's disregardA broken bottle topAnd a one man's soulThey follow each otherOn the wind ya' know'Cause they got nowhere to goThat's why I want you to know

I'm starting with the man in the mirrorI'm asking him to change his waysAnd no message could have been any clearerIf you wanna make the world a better placeTake a look at yourself and then make a change, yeyNa na na, na na na, na na na na oh ho

I've been a victim ofA selfish kinda loveIt's time that I realizeThere are some with no homeNot a nickel to loanCould it be really pretending that they're not alone

A willow deeply scarredSomebody's broken heartAnd a washed out dream(Washed out dream)They follow the pattern of the wind ya' see'Cause they got no place to beThat's why I'm starting with me

I'm starting with the man in the mirrorI'm asking him to change his waysAnd no message could have been any clearer

If you wanna make the world a better placeTake a look at yourself and then make a change

While i think we should try to be nonjudgmental about Michael Jackson, putting ourselves in his shoes, i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.

Is aversion always a "bad" thing? As a parent with 2 sons, there are situations that i try to steer them clear of, that i have taught them to "avert."

You don't go into rooms alone with adults, where the door is closed. How some parents could allow their kids to be alone with Michael, is a mystery to me.

I would have an "aversion" to my sons walking into a room with any adult on this planet, alone, where the door is closed.

I don't feel its right to judge Michael Jackson for this, but i can understand how he pushes a natural protective button in many sincerely caring parents...

Still, there is no "proof" that he ever did anything wrong, and the past is gone.

Last edited by christopher::: on Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

christopher::: wrote:While i think we should try to be nonjudgmental about Michael Jackson, putting ourselves in his shoes, i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.

Is aversion always a "bad" thing?

I never was a Michael Jackson fan. I am a fan of not spreading negativity. Spreading negativity is always harmful, it creates more negativity. Aversion is not helpful, acknowlegement is. Aversion harms. Dhamma courtesy is pointing this out.

Aversion comes to manifestation either in thoughts of ill will — as angry, hostile, or resentful thoughts; or in thoughts of harming — as the impulses to cruelty, aggression, and destruction. Thoughts of good will counter the former outflow of aversion, thoughts of harmlessness the latter outflow, in this way excising the unwholesome root of aversion itself.

Right Intention (Samma Sankappa)Bhikkhu Bodhi

Nidana Sutta: Causes

A person unknowing:the actions performed by him,born of greed, born of aversion,& born of delusion,whether many or few,are experienced right here: no other ground is found.

christopher::: wrote:While i think we should try to be nonjudgmental about Michael Jackson, putting ourselves in his shoes, i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.

Is aversion always a "bad" thing? As a parent with 2 sons, there are situations that i try to steer them clear of, that i have taught them to "avert."

You don't go into rooms alone with adults, where the door is closed. How some parents could allow their kids to be alone with Michael, is a mystery to me.

I would have an "aversion" to my sons walking into a room with any adult on this planet, alone, where the door is closed.

I don't feel its right to judge Michael Jackson for this, but i can understand how he pushes a natural protective button in many sincerely caring parents...

Still, there is no "proof" that he ever did anything wrong, and the past is gone.

i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.

What journey said.

Is aversion always a "bad" thing? As a parent with 2 sons, there are situations that i try to steer them clear of, that i have taught them to "avert."

You don't go into rooms alone with adults, where the door is closed.

That's not aversion,that's caution...

I would have an "aversion" to my sons walking into a room with any adult on this planet, alone, where the door is closed.

I'd say you feel concerned & protective, not aversion.

How some parents could allow their kids to be alone with Michael, is a mystery to me.

Yes. there you have a point. However, some either knew nothing bad would happen, and some thought: "Oh, money, money, money...let's see how to get some. Let's blackmail the guy. He will pay. He's got a reputation to lose." And initially that strategy may have paid off well.

Look at me. I am a private teacher, should I am now be concerned a male pupil could accuse me of seduction? What if??? How could I ever prove I didn't?

My reputation and livelihood would be destroyed forever, like Michaels.

And people would say: "She is a sick pedophile".

Some would say: "She was too innocent and naive, she just enjoyed helping children."

It would give me insomnia and migraine.

I would take sleeping pills and painkillers to be able to go to work.

One day, whilst exerting myself over work, I would collapse in my house, and be found by a friend "not breathing".

The city would gossip about me, and badmouth me, most of those wouldn't even know what I looked like and never heard me speak a word. Total strangers.

christopher::: wrote:While i think we should try to be nonjudgmental about Michael Jackson, putting ourselves in his shoes, i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.

Here I don't agree, friend. There are no sensible reasons for hate. Avoiding a person is one thing; having aversion for a person however is a manifestation of one's hate. It causes distress and puts an end to discernment. It's abandonment is recommended out of compassion. Na hi verena veráni sammantídha kudácanam; verena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano. (Hate can never be stilled by hate, but by non-hate alone.) Living beings are the results of their conditions. Thus how we perceive others tells more about ourselves than about the world.

Last edited by thecap on Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

thecap wrote:There are no sensible reasons for hate. Avoiding a person is one thing; having aversion for a person however is a manifestation of one's hate. It causes distress and puts an end to discernment. It's abandonment is recommended out of compassion. Na hi verena veráni sammantídha kudácanam; verena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano.

Clearly Michael Jackson was a talented entertainer, brought joy to many people, and did some good charity work.

I enjoyed his performances. Some people don't. I don't see any problem with people having different preferences about entertainers.

Quite a lot of musical entertainers have died in my lifetime whose work I have enjoyed at some level: Jimi Hendrix, Elvis, John Lennon, Keith Moon, Ian Curtis, Ian Drury, Kurt Kobain, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, Ray Charles, John Bonham, Johhny Cash, Michael Brecker, Michael Jackson. I'm sure most readers here don't care for the performance of at least some of them...

Clearly Michael Jackson was a talented entertainer, brought joy to many people, and did some good charity work.

I enjoyed his performances. Some people don't. I don't see any problem with people having different preferences about entertainers.

Quite a lot of musical entertainers have died in my lifetime whose work I have enjoyed at some level: Jimi Hendrix, Elvis, John Lennon, Keith Moon, Ian Curtis, Ian Drury, Kurt Kobain, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, Ray Charles, John Bonham, Johhny Cash, Michael Brecker, Michael Jackson. I'm sure most readers here don't care for the performance of at least some of them...

May all of them have good rebirths...

MettaMike

Thanks for returning some common sense to this thread.Metta

Ben

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

The word "aversion" is being bandied around a lot, when there really is no logical basis for it.

The Buddha said that killing, sexual misconduct and boozing it up are inappropriate actions... but does that necessarily mean he had aversion or hatred towards them, or to those who perform these actions? No, of course not. Please stop and think about that for a minute.

Just because you don't actively like something or find sensual enjoyment in it... or think that something is immoral behaviour, or think that certain acts are best confined to the bedroom, doesn't mean that these perceptions are based on unwholesome mindstates of aversion. They could well be based upon compassion for those who genuinely do have aversion to such things and get upset by them. They could well be based on wisdom, knowing that these actions are bound to cause suffering (as per Anna's example above, Michael's exploits with children were bound to cause suffering - innocent or not).

Accordingly, it's getting rather tiresome having false accusations about mindstates thrown around at people, simply because they don't like the same entertainers as those casting these aspersions. Where is this so called respect, universal love and compassion which they claim to possess? Are non-fans excempt from this? Can they not handle people not agreeing with them? Can they not handle their emotional expressions not being reciprocated? Does this lack of universal reciprocation represent a questioning of the validity of their emotional bond and what Michael Jackson represented to them? Dare this attempt to marginalise and ostracize non-fans who do not share this bond be called greed, delusion or aversion? etc.etc...... I don't know - I'm not a mind-reader, therefore I will not accuse others with the arrogance that I know what they're thinking.

From the Terms Of Service...

Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions

If this can not be followed, this topic will be closed. No more accusations about people's mindstates please (you're not mind-readers either) - play the ball and not the man. Talk about Michael Jackson if you like, but stop talking about and casting nasty aspersions upon each other in ways that violate the Terms Of Service. Thank you.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

retrofuturist wrote:Precisely my point, he should have saved it for the bedroom.

I disagree that his "crotch-framing" was necessarily negative...and this makes me curious what your mind brings to it. We are sexual. We will always be sexual. Sexuality isn't inherently negative. We eat, we breathe, we have sex. All of these must remain healthy, spontaneous, and instinctive within the limits of compassion.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

The word "aversion" is being bandied around a lot, when there really is no logical basis for it.

The Buddha said that killing, sexual misconduct and boozing it up are inappropriate actions... but does that necessarily mean he had aversion or hatred towards them, or to those who perform these actions? No, of course not. Please stop and think about that for a minute.

Just because you don't actively like something or find sensual enjoyment in it... or think that something is immoral behaviour, or think that certain acts are best confined to the bedroom, doesn't mean that these perceptions are based on unwholesome mindstates of aversion. They could well be based upon compassion for those who genuinely do have aversion to such things and get upset by them. They could well be based on wisdom, knowing that these actions are bound to cause suffering (as per Anna's example above, Michael's exploits with children were bound to cause suffering - innocent or not).

Accordingly, it's getting rather tiresome having false accusations about mindstates thrown around at people, simply because they don't like the same entertainers as those casting these aspersions. Where is this so called respect, universal love and compassion which they claim to possess? Are non-fans excempt from this? Can they not handle people not agreeing with them? Can they not handle their emotional expressions not being reciprocated? Does this lack of universal reciprocation represent a questioning of the validity of their emotional bond and what Michael Jackson represented to them? Dare this attempt to marginalise and ostracize non-fans who do not share this bond be called greed, delusion or aversion? etc.etc...... I don't know - I'm not a mind-reader, therefore I will not accuse others with the arrogance that I know what they're thinking.

From the Terms Of Service...

Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions

If this can not be followed, this topic will be closed. No more accusations about people's mindstates please (you're not mind-readers either) - play the ball and not the man. Talk about Michael Jackson if you like, but stop talking about and casting nasty aspersions upon each other in ways that violate the Terms Of Service. Thank you.

Metta,Retro.

Retro, you know that the Buddha said,if you don't accept a gift, who does it stay with?...

So.....

.....hey, what did I want to say?.....

Oh! Ok... I wanted to ask if you think that "crotch-shadowing" was sexual misconduct.

Or if hopping boobs are?

(I don't know if the word "boobs" is koscher, but I'm using it since Venerable Shi Yong Hang calls her "sisters" boobs, so I assume it's ok...)